On September 12, 2001, this photograph was printed on page seven of the New York Times. Taken by Richard Drew, the image angered millions of people, showing a man plummeting to his death from of the Twin Towers during the 9/11 attacks. While some publications displayed the photograph multiple times, the New York Times only published it once.

 

As this unnamed, unidentified man tumbled through the air, Drew managed to capture one with form that could be mistaken for elegance if you think about it a specific way. Was the man falling, or jumping? Could he be taking own life so that the terrorists couldn’t take it from him? Either way, the photograph causes a lot of debate as to whether or not it was ethically right to print the picture so soon after the attack in New York. Many people still believe that this picture exploited a man’s death, stripped him of his dignity and invaded his privacy.

 

This photo brings to question what is both good taste and morally sound in journalism. At what point does a photograph turn into gruesome morbidity? I believe that the ability to photograph something or someone in a truthful, objective and thought-provoking way without descending into classless sensationalistic gore is what makes good journalism. This particular photo is close to the line. While it may not be gory, the implication and meaning behind it can be seen as extremely unethical and unsound.